Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Note that CO2 emissions vary, e.g. due to economic forces, so looking at a couple of years is not useful. You need to look at periods that smooth out economic cycles. Picking out last 2 years ignores the plateau from 2014-16.

Do you even read what you type?

You're saying to ignore a trend of only two years because it doesn't count in the face of a trend of only two years immediately prior. Those two years are the aberration - in case you hadn't noticed, CO2 emissions have increased every year since about 1860, with the odd exception.

Next up, pedestrian crossings are black on white, not white on black.

Whether the EU has reduced emissions means sweet FA if the rest of the world is increasing by more than those reductions.

There's a handy graphic in this article that might help you understand what a long-term trend is:

I did. I explained the basic fact that economics vary and thus CO2 emissions vary. There are economic boom and bust cycles. There are recessions. There are changes in governmental policies. There are changes n consumer patterns. An economist could probably come up with more reasons why economics varies.

I did not say ignore the last 2 years. I said they need to be included in a longer tern trend to smooth out economic variation. This is similar to solar variation. No one ignores the fact that the Sun has a 11 year cycle when looking at trends in global temperatures. We use the last > 11 years including the last 2 years of solar activity to calculate the current trend.

ETA: We cannot reliably use just 2 years rise to predict future CO2 emissions will rise at the same rate. There is a chance that emissions will return to a plateau as previously.

That imaginary "load of people" will tell you that globally CO2 emissions continued to increase with the main sources being the USA, China and India. The EU though has decreased CO2 emissions since 1990. This is well known.Global Carbon Budget 2018.

That is not quite what that news article says, The Atheist.Global coal use up by third as greenhouse gas emissions rise
This is an article about greenhouse gas emissions from energy production, e.g. coal-fired power plants. They are not the only source of our CO2.
There is no mention of global GDP in the article. There is a "2.3% increase globally" in general energy demand with no breakdown into sectors. That figure alone is below global GDP of 3.5% (2017) AND 3.6% (2018).

ETA: We cannot reliably use just 2 years rise to predict future CO2 emissions will rise at the same rate. There is a chance that emissions will return to a plateau as previously.

And given that the "plateau" itself consists of 2-3 years in a trend of 175 years, you're refuting your own point.

Yet again, but for god's sake don't admit that.

Yes, there's a chance they will slow again. There's also a chance they won't.

I think the latter is more likely. Give it five years and we'll know what they were, but given the long-term trend, world GDP growth and the fact that the "plateau" was very short-lived, I'd gladly bet a box of chocolate fish on it.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The EU and other countries decreasing their CO2 emission merely suggests that countries such as the USA, China and India could do the same.

India won't slow its growth, which is what lowering carbon emissions would mean, and if you bothered checking out the bloke who's living in the White House and the people he's appointing to posts that impact on climate, you'd laugh at the idea that America is going to reduce emissions until it becomes financially imperative. That's a decade away at least.

You are aware USA withdrew from Paris, aren't you?

Do you even recognise how much easier it is for highly matured economies to go green than developing ones?

I love the way your name doesn't reflect your ability to acknowledge reality. Nice irony.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

There is no mention of global GDP in the article. There is a "2.3% increase globally" in general energy demand with no breakdown into sectors. That figure alone is below global GDP of 3.5% (2017) AND 3.6% (2018).

Correct, which is why I pointed out how similar they were.

But there's an excellent example in your post that shows what I mean about reality - what the sector breakdown of CO2 emissions are is utterly irrelevant when discussing the increase overall. Yet you raise it as though an important piece of the puzzle is missing.

Pathetic.

I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to disagree with here, and I don't think you even know yourself.

__________________The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

And given that the "plateau" itself consists of 2-3 years in a trend of 175 years, you're refuting your own point. ...

My point is that you did not use that 175 years of data!!

My point is that the existence of countries who have reduced CO2 emissions such as the EU means it is physically possible for the USA, China and India to reduce their CO2 emissions. Whether it happens is a different matter. The politics are irrelevant for this thread.

My points are that global GDP (3.5% in 2017, 3.6% in 2018) are numbers that are not similar to a "2.3% increase globally" in general energy demand.

2.3% is not close to 3.6%.
When numbers are reported without errors, the error is generally +/- 1 in the last significant digit, i.e. 2.3 +/- 0.1 and 3.6 +/- 0.1.

The energy demand is not just fossil fueled energy demand.
Energy demand includes solar and wind power.
Energy demand includes hydroelectric power.
Energy demand includes nuclear power.
Fossil fueled energy demand will be less than 2.3%.

A percentage increase (2.3%) is not an annual measure (3.5% in 2017, 3.6% in 2018).
The percentage increase in global GDP between 2017 and 2019 was 0.1%.

For comparison, that was 4o C (9o F) warmer than NZ's southernmost city, Invercargill, which is 10 degrees of latitude closer to the equator than Klawock.

Not a good comparison because Invercargill is different from Klawock.
Invercargill is at the bottom of the South island with Stewart Island below it. Invercargill is partially shielded by Stewart Island from cold southerlies but subject to weather funneled between the islands. Invercargill has the high ranges of the Southern Alps to the north.
Klawock is on the coast of a continent. Klawock is shielded by many islands (it is almost an inland city). There are at least hills all around Klawock. The weather will be different from Invercargill.

A more appropriate comparison of weather would be a South American city.

Wow, no wonder you use that name - you figured out they're different places. Pity you had to use Wikipedia to find out, but that's how it goes, I guess.

You really ought to see if you can go and buy a yourself a personality & sense of humour one of these days - I was making a casual observation rather than a scientific comparison. This is a discussion board as far as I'm aware, and your Romney-like blethering is both tedious and irrelevant.

Given the continuing rise and Trump's anti-AGW policies being enacted, I reckon you can lock in about 3 degrees, never mind the 2 in the Paris Accord.

I think this fight is just about over - buy high ground, sit back and watch.

Sadly, you are probably being overly optimistic. The IPCC ďbusiness as usualĒ scenario where we donít start to reduce CO2 emissions at some point places warming by 2100 between ~4-6 deg C above pre-industrial (1900ish) levels. Any projection lower than this includes at least some reduction in CO2 emissions.

__________________"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

Wow, no wonder you use that name - you figured out they're different places...

You were the one who causally compared weather in different places without checking whether their weather is different due to their different terrain!

Insults do not make a casual comparison correct. A "scientific comparison" assertion about my post pointing out that the casual comparison is wrong does not make the comparison correct.

I have the advantage of living in NZ and already knowing that Invercargill is a coastal city at the bottom of the South Island, sandwiched between Stewart Island and the Southern Alps. So I looked up Klawock and saw that it is a city on an large island (Prince of Wales) surrounded by islands and at least hilly terrain according to Google Earth. Different terrain alone makes the comparison wrong.

Insults and repeating a foolish comparison, The Atheist.You compare have cities in different terrains I did not point this out before but your comparison is also ignorant about seasons. Invercargill is in the Southern Hemisphere and starting autumn. Klawock is in the Northern Hemisphere and starting spring. Invercargill coming out of summer and being warmer than Klawock coming out of winter is not a surprise.

Another tiny flaw with the comparison is choosing the southernmost city in New Zealand when Klawock is not the northernmost city in North America.

Invercargill coming out of summer and being warmer than Klawock coming out of winter is not a surprise.

Finally, absolute proof you have no idea what you're even arguing about. You're dead right, Invercargill is usually warmer than Klawock at this time of year.

That's why I posted this:

Quote:

For comparison, that was 4o C (9o F) warmer than NZ's southernmost city, Invercargill, which is 10 degrees of latitude closer to the equator than Klawock.

You know, your continual following me around threads and making incorrect or spurious points is verging on stalking, and this thread proves it - you haven't got the least idea what you're crying about, but you have some strange compulsion to challenge my posts to the extent that you're making strawmen and outright lying.

Like I said earlier - it is truly pathetic.

__________________The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

Rather irresponsible politics is countered by responsible people reforming a scientific advisory group to complete the work it would have finished for the federal government.

The Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment was established under Barrack Obama's administration to provide scientific guidance based on the 4 yearly National Climate Assessment. A weak excuse to not renew their charter was that there was only 1 industry representative. The administration was not willing wait until April 2018 when advisory members would be rotated off.Trump officials faulted climate panel for having only Ďone member from industryí

Quote:

ďItís disturbing that the Trump administration dumped a scientific advisory committee for having too many scientists,Ē said Center for Biological Diversity senior attorney Howard Crystal, who filed the lawsuit to obtain the Commerce records.

Forget Cancun. Spring break in Alaska is where itís at. Bizarre March warmth has engulfed the Frontier State, setting an all-time temperature record in the latest manifestation of a new climate gripping the Arctic.

On Tuesday, Klawock, Alaska topped out at 70 degrees Fahrenheit. That marks the earliest 70-degree Fahrenheit day ever recorded in Alaska. The previous record was set just three years ago when Klawock reached 71 degrees Fahrenheit on March 31. In comparison, many cities in the Northeast have yet to crack that mark.

Oh my god, you're making yourself a bigger fool that ever. That's the exact point I was making.

Writing it again with links and bolding doesn't get you a pass here - you've demonstrated time and time again you have no idea what you're typing, and you've just done it again!

For god's sake will you please figure out what you actually think, then check what I actually typed. This is so far beyond absurd it isn't even parody. You contradict yourself, you try to contradict me by repeating what I've typed. You just do not have a single clue.

__________________The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

Nature and its vital contributions to people, which together embody biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are deteriorating worldwide.

Direct and indirect drivers of change have accelerated during the past 50 years.

Goals for conserving and sustainably using nature and achieving sustainability cannot be met by current trajectories, and goals for 2030 and beyond may only be achieved through transformative3
changes across economic, social, political and technological factors.

Nature can be conserved, restored and used sustainably while simultaneously meeting other global societal goals through urgent and concerted efforts fostering transformative change

I began to realize if almost 1/2 the land is already in agriculture, and the vast majority of the rest of it is mountain peaks, glaciers, and deserts unsuitable for all life but the extremophiles. Then added to that thought my experience in agricultural methods and knowledge of what the conventional does to the life on that land. I knew this will crack and collapse catastrophically soon.

I mean seriously. You cant literally kill off 1/2 the planet with biocides every single year on purpose and expect a good outcome. D'oh

__________________Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working﻿ with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill MollisonBiome Carbon Cycle Management

Some more indirect, such as methane leaks (methane becomes atmospheric CO2, after a delay).

How much, though, is due to "natural" effects of climate change? For example, warmer weather in boreal forests leads to massive die-offs of trees which leads to net atmospheric CO2; or more severe droughts lead to more ferocious and widespread forest fires (with much slower re-growth as the fires really do kill much more of the flora).

Some more indirect, such as methane leaks (methane becomes atmospheric CO2, after a delay).

How much, though, is due to "natural" effects of climate change? For example, warmer weather in boreal forests leads to massive die-offs of trees which leads to net atmospheric CO2; or more severe droughts lead to more ferocious and widespread forest fires (with much slower re-growth as the fires really do kill much more of the flora).

The airborne fraction has remained at ~45% since the industrial revolution. IOW the land and ocean carbon sinks absorb all the carbon released naturally and more than half the CO2 we release by burning fossil fuels.

Itís widely recognised that this cannot continue indefinitely and indeed that at the earth warms, it will slowly release naturally sequestered CO2. These slow feedbacks are a key player in glacial cycles for example, and provide the long term amplification required to turn small orbital wobbles into big climate chances.

These are slow effects however, and thus far have been swamped by our rapid release of fossil carbon. Of note, however, is that while we know these slow feedbacks exist and have powerful long term effects, they are not factored into current climate models or scenarios. Basically all IPCC projections ignore any and all effects that are not currently occurring, which means they are as conservative as reasonably possible with almost all risk on the side of them underestimating long term warming.

__________________"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

The airborne fraction has remained at ~45% since the industrial revolution. IOW the land and ocean carbon sinks absorb all the carbon released naturally and more than half the CO2 we release by burning fossil fuels.

Itís widely recognised that this cannot continue indefinitely and indeed that at the earth warms, it will slowly release naturally sequestered CO2. These slow feedbacks are a key player in glacial cycles for example, and provide the long term amplification required to turn small orbital wobbles into big climate chances.

These are slow effects however, and thus far have been swamped by our rapid release of fossil carbon. Of note, however, is that while we know these slow feedbacks exist and have powerful long term effects, they are not factored into current climate models or scenarios. Basically all IPCC projections ignore any and all effects that are not currently occurring, which means they are as conservative as reasonably possible with almost all risk on the side of them underestimating long term warming.

Thanks!

There's another indirect contributor I'm interested in: increased natural methane emissions, e.g. due to thawing permafrost. I think I read, upthread, that the direct effects of this (i.e. more warming) are not (or not well?) modeled (maybe I didn't read carefully enough). The indirect effect is yet more atmospheric CO2.

Also, as the oceans become more acidic, will their ability to absorb atmospheric CO2 decrease? IOW, more generally, what's the expected trend for the "~45%"?

There's another indirect contributor I'm interested in: increased natural methane emissions, e.g. due to thawing permafrost. I think I read, upthread, that the direct effects of this (i.e. more warming) are not (or not well?) modeled (maybe I didn't read carefully enough). The indirect effect is yet more atmospheric CO2.

Also, as the oceans become more acidic, will their ability to absorb atmospheric CO2 decrease? IOW, more generally, what's the expected trend for the "~45%"?

Realclimate has covered it a dew times but Methane probably isn't an issue long term, at least not directly.

The thing to remember is that Methane only stays in the atmosphere for a decade or so. CO2 on the other hand stays in the atmosphere for centuries. CO2 also has a long tail, so ~10% of the CO2 we are releasing will still be in the atmosphere 100K years from now.

If you increase the amount of Methane you release there is a corresponding 1 time increase in atmospheric methane, and radiative forcing. OTOH if you increase the amount of CO2 you release, atmospheric CO2 and radiative forcing will rise for several centuries, so in spite of Methane nominally being a stronger greenhouse gas CO2 has a larger climate impact. IF Methane were released fast enough it could cause very rapid warming, but only for a couple decades before the Methane decomposed to CO2.

While such a release could be possible at the very least it's unlikely, and rates at which methane is release would need to be many orders of magnitude faster than what's currently observed.

This isn't to say arctic soils and permafrost are not an issue, they contain enormousness amounts of carbon, but even if this carbon is initially released as methane is becomes CO2 rather quickly. However, there is enough carbon stored there that the CO2 itself is a big problem.

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Also, as the oceans become more acidic, will their ability to absorb atmospheric CO2 decrease? IOW, more generally, what's the expected trend for the "~45%"?

It's generally agreed that the oceans ability to hold CO2 drops as temperature increases. At the oceans continue to warm, therefor, at some point the worlds oceans will stop absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and begin releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. All the anthropogenic ic carbon they have already absorbed and more could ultimately be released into the atmosphere.

Again though, exactly when or how much extra carbon is an unknown so this is not something built into current climate change scenarios.

__________________"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

The thing to remember is that Methane only stays in the atmosphere for a decade or so. CO2 on the other hand stays in the atmosphere for centuries. CO2 also has a long tail, so ~10% of the CO2 we are releasing will still be in the atmosphere 100K years from now...

Not saying you are wrong, but you may be missing some qualification and nuance in what you appear to be saying. This isn't, strictly speaking, in accord with what the geologic record demonstrates. The problem with large scale, rapid releases of CH4 is that they overwhelm the mechanisms of atmospheric degradation of CH4 to CO2, meaning that large releases of methane into the atmosphere, have the potential to linger for tens to hundreds of thousands of years, and all the methane that is degraded is merely degraded to the longer potential persistence problem of atmospheric CO2 all the while exasperating the background warming.

Conclusions.
This study suggests that experts’ judgments of uncertainties in projections of the ice sheet contribution to SLR have grown during the last 6 y and since publication of the AR5. This is likely a consequence of a focused effort by the glaciological community to refine process understanding and improve process representation in numerical ice sheet models. It may also be related to the observational record, which indicates continued increase in mass loss from both the AIS and GrIS during this time. This negative learning (36, 37) may appear a counter intuitive conclusion, but is not an uncommon outcome: as understanding of the complexity of a problem improves, so can uncertainty bounds grow. We note that for risk management applications, consideration of the upper tail behavior of our SLR estimates is crucial for robust decision making. Limiting attention to the likely range, as was the case in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change AR5, may be misleading and will likely lead to a poor evaluation of the true risks. We find it plausible that SLR could exceed 2 m by 2100 for our high-temperature scenario, roughly equivalent to business as usual. This could result in land loss of 1.79 M km2, including critical regions of food production, and displacement of up to 187 million people (38). A SLR of this magnitude would clearly have profound consequences for humanity.

Not saying you are wrong, but you may be missing some qualification and nuance in what you appear to be saying. This isn't, strictly speaking, in accord with what the geologic record demonstrates. The problem with large scale, rapid releases of CH4 is that they overwhelm the mechanisms of atmospheric degradation of CH4 to CO2, meaning that large releases of methane into the atmosphere, have the potential to linger for tens to hundreds of thousands of years, and all the methane that is degraded is merely degraded to the longer potential persistence problem of atmospheric CO2 all the while exasperating the background warming.

Here is the result for a really big Methane pulse (100Gt) occurring over a 5-year span (Much more rapid release than the one heís looking at in hos blog post). This pulse is ~100X our current anthropogenic Methane emission and nominally ~100-200 years worth of equivalent CO2 at current emission rates. (Yearly CO2 emission is around 38Gt, CO2-eq is either 34X or 86X depending on what time horizon you select)

Notice that even the peak radiative forcing for such a pulse isnít ridiculously high and CO2 once again dominates changes radiative forcing within 30 years and within 50 itís almost as if the pulse never even occurred. Also note that there is no evidence such a large pulse and rapid is even possible in the foreseeable future. Basically we are talking about a 100000% increase in Methane emissions in the artic and nothing like that is occurring or immanent.

__________________"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

I’m not entirely sure the model in my last post works for negative numbers, but here is what it shows if we were to immediately cut anthropogenic Methane emissions in half but keep emitting CO2 our current rate. The difference in radiative forcing is negligible in comparison to CO2.

__________________"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.